Smt. D. Indira

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

( SPECIAL MOBILE COURT ) AT NALGONDA

PRESENT:- Smt. D. Indira., B.Com., LL.B.,

Judl.Magistrate of First Class

Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda.

( Dated this the 17th day of February, 2012)

C.C No.32 of 2011

Between:

The State of A.P Rep. By

Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nalgonda Rural Police Station . . . Prosecution

And

Singam Saidulu, S/o Yadaiah, age: 21 yrs, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Coolie, 1 R/o Maddivari Domalapally Village of Nalgonda Mandal. .

. . . Accused

This Case is coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of

Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri C.Badru Naik, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court made the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

Accused stand charged for the offence punishable under Sections 324

I.P.C.

2. The case of the Prosecution as under :-

One Singam Mallaiah, Complainant/Pw-1 lodged a complaint on 5-7-2010 at 0830 hours stating that on the same day at 0600 hours while the complainant 2 was proceeding to his agricultural fields, meantime near cattle shed of the

Gundeboina Chinna Lingaiah, accused attacked the complainant having suspected his role of badly manifesting about her daughter Manjula at her in-laws house and bat him with stick on his head, left shoulder and back causing injuries.

Basing on the above complaint a case in Crime No.92/2010 under

Section 324 I.P.C., was registered by L.W.8 K.Panduranga Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, and investigated into. During the course of investigation L.W.8 examined and recorded the statements of Lws.1 to 4 and sent LW-1 to Dist.

Hqrs. Hospital, Nalgonda for treatment along with requisition and LW-7

Dr.G.Saritha, treated him and opined that the injury is simple in nature and visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence seizure panchanama in the presence of Lws.5 and 6 vis., Tangella Narsi Reddy and Gundeboina China

Lingaiah and drafted the rough sketch map of the scene in the presence of same panchas and seized the weapon i.e., stick, which is used for bullock cart and on 15-7-2010 at 0500 hours LW-8 arrested the accused at Maddivari Domalapally village and sent him before the Court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation charge sheet is filed against the accused u/s.324 IPC.

3. This case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nalgonda against accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C and transferred to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.

3

4. On appearance of accused , case documents have been supplied to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 324 IPC was framed against the accused and the contents of the charges were read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The Prosecution in support of their case in all examined P.W.s 1 to 3 and marked Ex.P1 to P-4.

P.W.1 Singam Mallaiah, complaint and injured. PW-2 Burra Yadaiah, and

PW-3 Kasani Yellaiah are the eye witnesses. Ex.P-1 is the signature of PW-1 on complaint. Ex.P-2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-1. Ex.P-2 is 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement of Pw-2. Ex.P-3 is 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-3.

The learned Sr. APP given up the rest of the witnesses. The action of the learned Sr. APP is justified, since Pw.1 who is victim and injured and Pws.2 and 3 who are eye witnesses, not supported the prosecution case. This Court has closed the evidence of the official witnesses, viz., Lws.7 and 8 viz., Dr.G.Saritha, treated Pw-1 and K.Panduranga Reddy, investigating officer, respectively, as their evidence neither benefit to the prosecution nor prejudice to the accused, except waste of public time.

4

7. Since there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The point for determination is :-

Whether the Prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 324

I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point:- This is a case of voluntarily causing hurt by deadly weapon. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 approached them complaining that the marriage of his daughter and the daughter of his elder brother were performed with the two sons of Naraboina Yerraiah who is the native of Naraboinaudem village and that the son of his elder brother I,e, accused suspected he role of the complainant and his wife as they were creating bad reports at his sister's in laws house and keeping in mind the same on 5.7.2010 about 6.00 a.m. while the complainant was proceeding to his agricultural lands, near the cattle shed of Gundeboina

Chinna Lingaha accused attacked the complainant with a stick which was used for bullock cart and beat on the head of PW1, back and left shoulder causing injuries and escaped from the scene.

11. But PW1 who is the complainant and injured in his evidence stated that there are no disputes between himself and accused and that no incident took place between them. He stated that while cutting the tree, a branch fell on him and as such he sustained injuries on his body and that when he was in the hospital, police obtained his signature on a white paper. PW2 who are cited as eye-witnesses to the incident depose in their evidence that they do not know anything about this case and according to them there are no disputes between 5

PW1 and accused. Pws 1 to 3 did not support the case of the prosecution.

Nothing could be elicited by the learned Sr.A.P.P during the cross examination by the learned Sr.A.P.P in support of the case of prosecution. Prosecution also did not examine the remaining witnesses including the Investigating Officer to state about the material object with which accused alleged to have bet PW1.

12. In view of the hostile testimony of all the witnesses including the injured, I hold that there is no evidence to hold the accused guilty for the offence under section 324 of I.P.C.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 324 of I.P.C and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused stand cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation, Corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of February, 2012.

JUDLMAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASSS

( SPECIAL MOBILE COURT )

NALGONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF OTHE PROSECUTION

PW-1(LW.1) Singam Mallaiah Complainant and injured.

PW-2(LW.2) Burra Yadaiah Eye witness

PW-3(LW.3) Kasani Yellaiah Eye witness

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ROSECUTION

Ex. P1 Dt 05/07/10 Signature of Pw-1 on complaint

Ex.P2 Dt 05/07/10 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-1 6

Ex.P3 Dt 05/07/10 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-2

Ex.P4 Dt 05/07/10 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-3

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

JUDLMAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASSS

( SPECIAL MOBILE COURT )

NALGONDA

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

( SPECIAL MOBILE COURT ) AT NALGONDA

PRESENT:- Smt. D. Indira., B.Com., LL.B.,

Judl.Magistrate of First Class

Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda.

( Dated this the 17th day of February, 2012)

C.C No.36 of 2009

Between:

The State of A.P Rep. By

Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nalgonda Rural Police Station . . . Prosecution

And

Pothepaka Ramalingaiah, S/o Yellaiah, 40 yrs, SC(Madiga) Coolie, R/o 1 Velugupally (V). .

. . . Accused

This Case is coming on this day before me on 9-2-2012 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri

K.Anantha Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court made the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

Accused stand charged for the offence punishable under Sections 326

I.P.C.

2. The case of the Prosecution as under :-

One Boda Peddulu, Complainant/LW-1 lodged complaint on 2-12-2008 at 1600 hours stating that on 1-12-2008 at night 1100 hours while LW-1 was 2 returning to his house from agricultural lands, and when he reached near the house of accused, accused found in fully drunken stage and demanded LW-1 to get some alcohol for drinking, and when reprimanded him, and he being in intoxicated condition, he previously set fire to the hut and on that accused got annoyed and gave blow to LW-1 on his mouth as a result, his three teeth were broken and remaining are damaged.

Basing on the above complaint a case in Crime No.183/2008 under

Section 325 I.P.C was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, statements of Lw.1 was recorded at P.S. And sent him to Govt.

Hqrs hospital for treatment and wound certificate where LW-6 Dr.G.Anitha Rani treated him and opined that LW-1 sustained grievous injury and later he visited the scene of offence situated at Velugupally village and there conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Lws.4 and 5 viz., Manupati Anjaiah and as per the version of Lw-1 broken teeth were could not be found as the incident occurred in the night hours and examined and recorded the statements of Lw.2 and 3 Pothepaka Krishnaiah and Pothepaka Kasi and on 12-12-2008 arrested the accused and produced him before the court for judicial remand on the same day and on completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused u/s.326 IPC.

3. This case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nalgonda against accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C 3 and transferred to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.

4. On appearance of accused , case documents have been supplied to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 326 IPC was framed against the accused and the contents of the charges were read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The Prosecution in support of their case in all examined P.W.s 1 to 3 and marked Ex.P1 to P-4.

P.W.1 Boda Peddu, complaint and injured. PW2 Pothepaka Krishnaiah,

PW-3 Pothepaka Ramulu are the eye witnesses to the incident. Ex.P-1 is the signature of PW-1 on complaint. Ex.P-2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-1.

Ex.P-3 is 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-2. Ex.P-4 is 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of

Pw-3.

The learned Sr. APP given up the rest of the witnesses. The action of the learned Sr. APP is justified, since Pw.1 victim, and Pws.2 and 3 who are eye witnesses, not supported the prosecution case. This Court has closed the evidence of the official witnesses, viz., Lws.6 and 7 namely Dr.G.Anitha Rani and

V.Jayapal Reddy respectively, as their evidence neither benefit to the 4 prosecution nor prejudice to the accused, except waste of public time.

7. Since there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The point for determination is :-

Whether the Prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 326

I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point:- This is a case of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by deadly weapon.

The case of the prosecution is that on 1.12.2008 at 11.00 P.M while PW1 was returning to his house from agricultural lands, when he reached near the house of accused, accused found in fully drunken stage and unnecessarily attacked him and gave blow on his mouth, as a result his teeth were broken. But PW1 who is the complainant and injured in his evidence stated that no incident took place between himself and accused and he never approached the police to give any complaint against the accused. He further stated that his wife did not sustain any injury in any galata and his signature were obtained by the Police in connection with some other disputes with the villagers. PW2 who are cited as eye-witnesses to the incident depose in their evidence that they do not know anything about this case and according to them no disputes between PW1 and accused. Pws 1 to 3 did not support the case of the prosecution. Nothing could be elicited by the learned Sr.A.P.P during the cross examination by the learned Sr.A.P.P in support of the case of prosecution. The prosecution also did not examine the remaining witnesses including the Investigation Officer to state about the material object with which the accused alleged to have bet PW1.

5

11. In view of the hostile testimony of all the witnesses including the injured, I hold that there is no evidence to hold the accused guilty for the offence under section 326 of I.P.C.

12. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 326 of I.P.C and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused stand cancelled.

Typed to dictation, Corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of February, 2012.

JUDLMAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASSS

( SPECIAL MOBILE COURT )

NALGONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF OTHE PROSECUTION

PW-1(LW.1) Boda Peddulu Complainant and injured

PW-2(LW.2) Potepaka Krishanaiah Eye witness

PW-3(LW.3) P.Kasi Ramulu Eye witness

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ROSECUTION

Ex. P1 Dt 02/12/08 Signature of Pw-1 on complaint.

Ex.P2 Dt 02/12/08 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-1

Ex.P3 Dt 02/12/08 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-2

Ex.P4 Dt 02/12/08 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-3

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL 6

JUDLMAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASSS

( SPECIAL MOBILE COURT )

NALGONDA